Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785219
Review Article

Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology (ISMPO)—Breast Cancer in Young Guidelines

Jyoti Bajpai
1   Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Shruti Sanjay Gandhi
2   Department of Medical Oncology, Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
,
Senthil Rajappa
3   Department of Medical Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Rima Pathak 
4   Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Shalaka Joshi
5   Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Atul Batra
6   Department of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Manisha Singh
7   Department of Medical Oncology, Mahavir Cancer Sansthan and Research Center, Patna, Bihar, India
,
Joydeep Ghosh
8   Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Bharath Rangarajan
9   Department of Medical Oncology, The Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Gaurav Prakash 
10   Department of Medical Oncology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
,
Biswajit Dubashi 
11   Department of Medical Oncology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
,
Syed Nisar Ahmad
12   Department of Medical Oncology, Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
,
Rinoy Sreedharan
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Indira IVF Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Shivashankara Swamy Mathighatta Shivarudraiah
14   Department of Medical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, Delhi, India
,
Bhawna Sirohi 
15   Department of Medical Oncology, Balco Medical Centre, Vedanta Medical Research Foundation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
,
Chirag Desai
16   Department of Medical Oncology, Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India
,
Prakash Chitalkar
17   Department of Medical Oncology, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Sudeep Gupta 
18   Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Hemant Malhotra 
19   Department of Medical Oncology, Sriram Cancer Center, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Shyam Aggrawal
20   Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital, Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer globally and in India. In India, BC is more common among younger women compared with Western counterparts. Younger women with BC tend to have a less favorable outcome as they are more likely to have aggressive tumors. Younger women are not well represented in BC management studies as the median age at diagnosis is in the late 50s to early 60s. This can lead to difficulty in using risk-stratification models and molecular tools among young BC patients and may result in overtreatment. Therefore, Indian Society of Medical and Pediatric Oncology gathers and organizes available evidence from published literature to create a guide specifically for young BC patients in low- and middle-income countries like India.

Keywords

breast cancer in young - breast cancer - National guidelines

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
22 July 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Azim Jr HA, Partridge AH. Biology of breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (04) 427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Report of national cancer registry programme 2020. Cited February 14 2021; [internet]. Accessed at: https://ncdirindia.org/All_Reports/Report_2020/default.aspx
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bajpai J, Ventrapati P, Joshi S. et al. Unique challenges and outcomes of young women with breast cancers from a tertiary care cancer centre in India. Breast 2021; 60 (RV2): 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Villarreal-Garza C, Platas A, Miaja M. et al. Young women with breast cancer in Mexico: results of the pilot phase of the Joven &Fuerte prospective cohort. JCO Glob Oncol 2020; 6: 395-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Robson ME, Bradbury AR, Arun B. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (31) 3660-3667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nikolaidis C, Ming C, Pedrazzani C. et al; for the CASCADE Consortium. Challenges and opportunities for cancer predisposition cascade screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and lynch syndrome in Switzerland: findings from an international workshop. Public Health Genomics 2018; 21 (3–4): 121-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (21) 2005-2014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Copson E, Eccles B, Maishman T. et al; POSH Study Steering Group. Prospective observational study of breast cancer treatment outcomes for UK women aged 18-40 years at diagnosis: the POSH study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105 (13) 978-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Partridge AH. et al. ESO-ESMO 4th International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4). Ann Oncol 2020; 31 (06) 674-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC. et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (23) 2243-2257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Vila J, Gandini S, Gentilini O. Overall survival according to type of surgery in young (≤40 years) early breast cancer patients: a systematic meta-analysis comparing breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy. Breast 2015; 24 (03) 175-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fancher C, Grumley J, Terando AM. Safety and outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2021; 13 (01) 28-34
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Niemeyer M, Paepke S, Schmid R, Plattner B, Müller D, Kiechle M. Extended indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast J 2011; 17 (03) 296-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ashworth A, Kong W, Whelan T, Mackillop WJ. A population-based study of the fractionation of postlumpectomy breast radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86 (01) 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (02) 111-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pagani O, Francis PA, Fleming GF. et al; SOFT and TEXT Investigators and International Breast Cancer Study Group. Absolute improvements in freedom from distant recurrence to tailor adjuvant endocrine therapies for premenopausal women: results from TEXT and SOFT. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38 (12) 1293-1303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J. et al; MINDACT Investigators. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (08) 717-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nitz U, Gluz O, Christgen M. et al. Reducing chemotherapy use in clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk pN0 and pN1 early breast cancer patients: five-year data from the prospective, randomised phase 3 West German Study Group (WSG) PlanB trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 165 (03) 573-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nitz UA, Gluz O, Kümmel S. et al. Endocrine therapy response and 21-gene expression assay for therapy guidance in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40 (23) 2557-2567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barke M. CanAssist-Breast -an immunohistochemistry based test for risk of recurrence prediction for early stage breast cancer patients: a cost-effective and accurate solution for Asia. Ann Oncol 2018; 29 (Suppl. 09) ix1-ix7
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sengupta AK, Gunda A, Malpani S. et al. Comparison of breast cancer prognostic tests CanAssist Breast and Oncotype DX. Cancer Med 2020; 9 (21) 7810-7818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bakre MM, Ramkumar C, Attuluri AK. et al. Clinical validation of an immunohistochemistry-based CanAssist-Breast test for distant recurrence prediction in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients. Cancer Med 2019; 8 (04) 1755-1764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Torrisi R, Bagnardi V, Pruneri G. et al. Antitumour and biological effects of letrozole and GnRH analogue as primary therapy in premenopausal women with ER and PgR positive locally advanced operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2007; 97 (06) 802-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dellapasqua S, Gray KP, Munzone E. et al; International Breast Cancer Study Group. Neoadjuvant degarelix versus triptorelin in premenopausal patients who receive letrozole for locally advanced endocrine-responsive breast cancer: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (05) 386-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF. et al; SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (02) 122-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Saha P, Regan MM, Pagani O. et al; SOFT, TEXT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group. Treatment efficacy, adherence, and quality of life among women younger than 35 years in the international breast cancer study group TEXT and SOFT adjuvant endocrine therapy trials. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (27) 3113-3122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J. et al; Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013; 381 (9869) 805-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gray RG, Rea D, Handley K. et al. aTTom: long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years in 6,953 women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (01) 5-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Noh WC, Lee JW, Nam SJ. et al. Role of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen in young women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remain premenopausal or resume menstruation after chemotherapy: the ASTRRA study. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (15) 502
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 van Hellemond IEG, Vriens IJH, Peer PGM. et al; Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group (BOOG). Ovarian function recovery during anastrozole in breast cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109 (12) DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx074.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rosner W, Hankinson SE, Sluss PM, Vesper HW, Wierman ME. Challenges to the measurement of estradiol: an endocrine society position statement. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98 (04) 1376-1387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bellet M, Gray K, Francis P. et al. Abstract P4–14–01: estrogen levels in premenopausal patients (pts) with hormone-receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC) receiving adjuvant triptorelin (Trip) plus exemestane (E) or tamoxifen (T) in the SOFT trial: SOFT- EST substudy final analysis. Cancer Res 2019; 79 (04) 4-P14
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Hill N, Madarnas Y. Failure of ovarian ablation with goserelin in a pre-menopausal breast cancer patient resulting in pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 129 (01) 265-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cluze C, Rey D, Huiart L. et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen in young women with breast cancer: determinants of interruptions vary over time. Ann Oncol 2012; 23 (04) 882-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Murphy CC, Bartholomew LK, Carpentier MY, Bluethmann SM, Vernon SW. Adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134 (02) 459-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lambert LK, Balneaves LG, Howard AF, Chia SK, Gotay CC. Understanding adjuvant endocrine therapy persistence in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer 2018; 18 (01) 732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lambertini M, Moore HCF, Leonard RCF. et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy for preservation of ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (19) 1981-1990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kim J, Turan V, Oktay K. Long-term safety of letrozole and gonadotropin stimulation for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016; 101 (04) 1364-1371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Turan V, Oktay K. BRCA-related ATM-mediated DNA double-strand break repair and ovarian aging. Hum Reprod Update 2020; 26 (01) 43-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M. et al; International Breast Cancer Study Group, POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2023; 388 (18) 1645-1656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lambertini M, Kroman N, Ameye L. et al. Long-term safety of pregnancy following breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110 (04) 426-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H. et al; Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Vienna, Austria. Zoledronic acid combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy of tamoxifen versus anastrozol plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: final analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12. Ann Oncol 2015; 26 (02) 313-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J. et al. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29 (29) 3877-3884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37 298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 2019; 393 (10179): 1440-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M. et al. Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19 (12) 3103-3110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J. et al. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (08) 1177-1183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J. et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 379 (9814) 432-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bajpai J, Kashyap L, Vallathol DH. et al. Outcomes of non-metastatic triple negative breast cancers: real-world data from a large Indian cohort. Breast 2022; 63: 77-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kim HJ, Kim S, Freedman RA, Partridge AH. The impact of young age at diagnosis (age <40 years) on prognosis varies by breast cancer subtype: A U.S. SEER database analysis. Breast 2022; 61: 77-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R. et al; KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple- negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2022; 386 (06) 556-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Mittendorf EA, Zhang H, Barrios CH. et al. Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with sequential nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus placebo and chemotherapy in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion031): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2020; 396 (10257): 1090-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Geyer CE, Sikov WM, Huober J. et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of addition of carboplatin with or without veliparib to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: 4-year follow-up data from BrighTNess, a randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2022; 33 (04) 384-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gupta S, Nair NS, Hawaldar RW. et al. Addition of platinum to sequential taxane-anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: a phase III randomized controlled trial. Cancer Res 2023; 83 (5 Suppl): GS5-01
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S. et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (22) 2147-2159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B. et al; OlympiA Clinical Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2021; 384 (25) 2394-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Martin M, Hegg R, Kim SB. et al. Treatment with adjuvant abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a prespecified analysis of the monarchE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8 (08) 1190-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Slamon DJ, Fasching PA, Hurvitz S. et al. Rationale and trial design of NATALEE: a phase III trial of adjuvant ribociclib + endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone in patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2023; 15: 17 588359231178125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Tolaney SM, Guo H, Pernas S. et al. Seven-year follow-up analysis of adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab trial for node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (22) 1868-1875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH. et al. 5-year analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in patients with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17 (06) 791-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 von Minckwitz G, Procter M, de Azambuja E. et al; APHINITY Steering Committee and Investigators. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (02) 122-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS. et al; KATHERINE Investigators. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (07) 617-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Martin M, Holmes FA, Ejlertsen B. et al; ExteNET Study Group. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (12) 1688-1700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bajpai J, Kagwade S, Chandrasekharan A. et al. “Randomised controlled trial of scalp cooling for the prevention of chemotherapy induced alopecia”. Breast 2020; 49: 187-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Sokal A, Elefant E, Leturcq T, Beghin D, Mariette X, Seror R. Pregnancy and newborn outcomes after exposure to bisphosphonates: a case-control study. Osteoporos Int 2019; 30 (01) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Bhat S, Orucevic A, Woody C, Heidel RE, Bell JL. Evolving trends and influencing factors in mastectomy decisions. Am Surg 2017; 83 (03) 233-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Chippa V, Barazi H. Inflammatory breast cancer. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing. updated 2022 April 1; January 2022. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Lizarraga IM, Sugg SL, Weigel RJ, Scott-Conner CE. Review of risk factors for the development of contralateral breast cancer. Am J Surg 2013; 206 (05) 704-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM. et al; HEBON. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer 2015; 136 (03) 668-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Kiely BE, Jenkins MA, McKinley JM. et al. Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and other high-risk women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 120 (03) 715-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Álvarez M. et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (07) 2737-2743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Tutt A, Tovey H, Cheang MCU. et al. Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT Trial. Nat Med 2018; 24 (05) 628-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E. et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (06) 523-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J. et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (08) 753-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Riaz N, Blecua P, Lim RS. et al. Pan-cancer analysis of bi-allelic alterations in homologous recombination DNA repair genes. Nat Commun 2017; 8 (01) 857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Chikaraddi SB, Krishnappa R, Deshmane V. Male breast cancer in Indian patients: is it the same?. Indian J Cancer 2012; 49 (03) 272-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Tse J, Rosenberg PS. Male breast cancer: a population-based comparison with female breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (02) 232-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Bajpai J, Simha V, Shylasree TS. et al. Pregnancy associated breast cancer (PABC): report from a gestational cancer registry from a tertiary cancer care centre, India. Breast 2021; 56: 88-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Bajpai J, Pathak R, Shylasree TS, Rugo HS. Management of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy: global perspectives. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2022; 22 (12) 1301-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Amant F, Lefrère H, Borges VF. et al. The definition of pregnancy-associated breast cancer is outdated and should no longer be used. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22 (06) 753-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Loibl S, Schmidt A, Gentilini O. et al. Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy adapting recent advances in breast cancer care for pregnant patients. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1 (08) 1145-1153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: imaging modalities and pregnancy-associated breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (02) 321-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Mittra I, Mishra GA, Dikshit RP. et al. Effect of screening by clinical breast examination on breast cancer incidence and mortality after 20 years: prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai. BMJ 2021; 372 (256) n256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K. et al; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology 2020; 77 (02) 181-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Sun H, Dai S, Xu J, Liu L, Yu J, Sun T. Primary neuroendocrine tumor of the breast: current understanding and future perspectives. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 848485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 O'Dorisio TM, Harris AG, O'Dorisio MS. Evolution of neuroendocrine tumor therapy. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2020; 29 (02) 145-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Shanks A, Choi J, Karur V. Dramatic response to cyclin D-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor in refractory poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast. Proc Bayl Univ Med Cent 2018; 31 (03) 352-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Valente I, Tringali G, Martella EM, Pallavera L, D'Aloia C. Primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast: A case report of liver and lymph node metastases after eight years from diagnosis. Breast J 2020; 26 (03) 505-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012; 21 (08) 1305-1314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar